Vaping for nicotine advantages?

[mosspa]

@mosspaAs far as the LD50 of nicotine is concerned, i believe you may find this interesting:
How much nicotine kills a human? Tracing back the generally accepted lethal dose to dubious self-experiments in the nineteenth century
Authors blog: Electronic cigarettes and nicotine poisoning

Yes, I did find that interesting, but not too surprising. It's amazing how much of this is prevalent in the modern scientific literature. The problem is largely because of the laziness of the scientists. Quite often, you will find the primary reference to a "fact" being a source, like an ancient textbook, that is actually a secondary reference with no primary reference given. In general scientific writing, any "statement of fact" should be followed by a citation to the reference for the "fact". It is far easier to mention a textbook and hide the reference in the 100s that appear in the reference section than it is to actually find the primary reference. Editors have better things to do with their time then determine the veracity of every citation/reference combo. That is how many accepted "facts" become accepted "facts".

I believe that the myth surrounding nicotine addiction is based on this same sort of error. By using "nicotine" synonymously with "tobacco", scientists who should know better, have allowed the propagation of the myth. Undoubtedly, the 'primary reference' would be a statement of a property attributed to "nicotine" that was actually a property of "tobacco".

 

[mosspa]

Thinking about what I wrote above, when I arrived at my office at school I looked at 13 different textbooks in such areas as behavioral neuroscience, drugs, general psychology, etc., for references to statements like: "Nicotine is probably the most addictive drug that humans consume.", "Nicotine, an outrageously addictive compound...", "Nicotine, the addictive component of tobacco smoke...", "Because nicotine is highly addictive...", etc. None of these statements is even followed by a citation, let alone to a reference of some obscure publication. My guess is that this is the case because no such reference exists. If one did exist, one of the books probably would have cited it. One can follow the speculative sentence with any number of models of self administration of nicotine in animals, yet none of the follow-up animal stuff directly addresses the initial statement being made in regard to nicotine being addictive in humans. Even to the extent that some people believe that use of tobacco products can be come "addicting", saying that nicotine is the reason, without any empirical support, is ludicrous. This is especially true when it is being stated with the knowledge that there are over 9600 other constituents of tobacco smoke.

 

[sofarsogood]

Thinking about what I wrote above, when I arrived at my office at school I looked at 13 different textbooks in such areas as behavioral neuroscience, drugs, general psychology, etc., for references to statements like: "Nicotine is probably the most addictive drug that humans consume.", "Nicotine, an outrageously addictive compound...", "Nicotine, the addictive component of tobacco smoke...", "Because nicotine is highly addictive...", etc. None of these statements is even followed by a citation, let alone to a reference of some obscure publication. My guess is that this is the case because no such reference exists. If one did exist, one of the books probably would have cited it. One can follow the speculative sentence with any number of models of self administration of nicotine in animals, yet none of the follow-up animal stuff directly addresses the initial statement being made in regard to nicotine being addictive in humans. Even to the extent that some people believe that use of tobacco products can be come "addicting", saying that nicotine is the reason, without any empirical support, is ludicrous. This is especially true when it is being stated with the knowledge that there are over 9600 other constituents of tobacco smoke.

I believe that nicotine gum and patches went from perscription only to over the counter about 20 years ago. I believe that was done via FDA approval. There must be some documents recording and justsifying the decision. They must still be available somewhere making a case that nicotine is not so addictive after all.

I searched a bit about patches and addiction and found a few individuals complaining but no reference to studies about how addictive patches might be. I bet the drug companies know the percent of patch customers who are long term habitual users.

 

[Rossum]

I believe that nicotine gum and patches went from perscription only to over the counter about 20 years ago. I believe that was done via FDA approval. There must be some documents recording and justsifying the decision. They must still be available somewhere making a case that nicotine is not so addictive after all.

I searched a bit about patches and addiction and found a few individuals complaining but no reference to studies about how addictive patches might be. I bet the drug companies know the percent of patch customers who are long term habitual users.

Given the rather slow absorption from a patch and the lack of behavioral reinforcement, I don't think you can readily compare addictive potential of patches with that of nicotine consumed via smoking, vaping, or even taken orally via gum.

 

[CronesCauldron]

Nice to meet you John, I am a new member of this forum as well as a new vaper. My reasons for beginning were to lessen food cravings and, hopefully, lose weight as a result. Never much of a smoker, even in the day, I still enjoyed the experience. Vaping, like smoking, seems to induce a calming sort of effect - or at least for me.

My experiment is in it's 4th week and I am thoroughly enjoying the experience, so far.

I found your descriptions of the experiments you've outlined fascinating. I had decided to begin mixing my own ejuice to better control exactly the flavors I want as well as to feel a little more secure in the aseptic techniques used in preparing them. I had planned to discontinue the addition of nicotine, but after reading your findings, may choose to leave it in. Who needs more 'senior moments' ?

PJ

 

[DC2]

I believe that nicotine gum and patches went from perscription only to over the counter about 20 years ago. I believe that was done via FDA approval. There must be some documents recording and justsifying the decision. They must still be available somewhere making a case that nicotine is not so addictive after all.

I searched a bit about patches and addiction and found a few individuals complaining but no reference to studies about how addictive patches might be. I bet the drug companies know the percent of patch customers who are long term habitual users.

Having just read your post, I feel like you have not been around as long as I thought.
You may have missed tons of posts regarding this topic.

New Strategy for Smoking Cessation (nic-eating bacterial enzyme)
Great Article on the Possible Health Benefits of Nicotine

And straight from the horse's mouth...
Nicotine Replacement Therapy Labels May Change

 

[sofarsogood]

Having just read your post, I feel like you have not been around as long as I thought.
You may have missed tons of posts regarding this topic.

New Strategy for Smoking Cessation (nic-eating bacterial enzyme)
Great Article on the Possible Health Benefits of Nicotine

And straight from the horse's mouth...
Nicotine Replacement Therapy Labels May Change

I read the FDA link. It's double talk written by lawyers, not doctors. The FDA is a law enforcement agency. The only thing they care about with us is we aren't following their laws. Our health is the least of their concerns.

 

[DC2]

I read the FDA link. It's double talk written by lawyers, not doctors. The FDA is a law enforcement agency. The only thing they care about with us is we aren't following their laws. Our health is the least of their concerns.

For those that may have missed it, here is the most relevant part...

The changes that FDA is allowing to these labels reflect the fact that although any nicotine-containing product is potentially addictive, decades of research and use have shown that NRT products sold OTC do not appear to have significant potential for abuse or dependence.

Like I said, straight from the horse's mouth.

 

[sofarsogood]

For those that may have missed it, here is the most relevant part...

Like I said, straight from the horse's mouth.

They intend to ban ecig products until further notice. It's really as simple as that. The law doesn't require them to make any justification so they won't.

 

[mosspa]

Given the rather slow absorption from a patch and the lack of behavioral reinforcement, I don't think you can readily compare addictive potential of patches with that of nicotine consumed via smoking, vaping, or even taken orally via gum.

This is true if you are defining "addiction" as habit strength. However, if you are defining "addiction" as most of the rest of the world does (i.e., continued or increase use of a substance because of some property of the substance), then the route of administration shouldn't matter if it results in similar blood levels of the substance. There is a comparison graph in my lecture that illustrates this. If nicotine is "addicting" as a drug, months of patch-based administration should result in some measure of "addiction".

 

[mosspa]

They intend to ban ecig products until further notice. It's really as simple as that. The law doesn't require them to make any justification so they won't.

This is quite a reactionary post. "They" are not intending to ban "ecig products", at least not the ones that are important. Just as you can still buy rolling papers for what ever purpose you want to use them for, you will still be able to purchase any vaping hardware you might want. You will also be able to purchase nicotine and any flavor additives that don't contain nicotine. Outside of general libertarian concerns about government regulating any consumable, I really don't see what the issue is, except, perhaps, laziness.

 

[Robino1]

This is quite a reactionary post. "They" are not intending to ban "ecig products", at least not the ones that are important. Just as you can still buy rolling papers for what ever purpose you want to use them for, you will still be able to purchase any vaping hardware you might want. You will also be able to purchase nicotine and any flavor additives that don't contain nicotine. Outside of general libertarian concerns about government regulating any consumable, I really don't see what the issue is, except, perhaps, laziness.

If the way the FDA deemed ecigs a tobacco product, and requiring them to go through the PMTA process, they have essentially defacto banned them.

If you do not know what the FDA has done.... They have made all parts and components of an ecig a tobacco product. Yes, even as far as drip tips. Intended use and all that jazz.

 

[Lessifer]

This is quite a reactionary post. "They" are not intending to ban "ecig products", at least not the ones that are important. Just as you can still buy rolling papers for what ever purpose you want to use them for, you will still be able to purchase any vaping hardware you might want. You will also be able to purchase nicotine and any flavor additives that don't contain nicotine. Outside of general libertarian concerns about government regulating any consumable, I really don't see what the issue is, except, perhaps, laziness.

That's not entirely true. In fact, the opinion of most in the industry and advocates, is that roughly 99.9% of the products currently available will either not be approved, or will not have applications submitted. The reason the applications won't be submitted is not laziness. The only PMTA's approved to date were part of a 130,000 page application for a product already widely used in another country. The way the regulations are written, anything related to an e-cig that is not an accessory(like a lanyard) that is sold directly to consumers would require a PMTA.

ETA: You can still buy rolling papers because they were grandfathered in under the FSPTCA, they never had to go through the PMTA process.

 

[sofarsogood]

This is quite a reactionary post. "They" are not intending to ban "ecig products", at least not the ones that are important. Just as you can still buy rolling papers for what ever purpose you want to use them for, you will still be able to purchase any vaping hardware you might want. You will also be able to purchase nicotine and any flavor additives that don't contain nicotine. Outside of general libertarian concerns about government regulating any consumable, I really don't see what the issue is, except, perhaps, laziness.

If your opinion is well informed that's very reassuring but a lot of us paying attention and trying to understand what's coming are concerned to the point of stocking supplies. The items needed to vape for10 years, mods, atomizers and nicotine, can be had for very little money, well under a thousand dollars. My stock of supplies for 10 years cost less than I used to spend to smoke for 3 months. My read of the regulations are that nothing i use today is likely to be available after August '18. It will be a great relief if I'm wrong.

In the mean time the topic of this thread is far from the above and i shouldn't have brought it up. I appriceate your contributions to the discussion.

 

[mosspa]

This will be my last comment on ecig regulation in this thread. Yes, I have been following the FDA's actions and the debate. I also believe that some version of the Cole-Bishop Amendment will make it into law this spring. Even if it doesn't, I'm guessing that at least one of the lawsuits against the FDA will make it to SCOTUS before the Aug 2018 deadline, since essentially an entire "industry" will be threatened by the FDA action. My previous remarks were made with the prediction that a "compromise" will be reached. Synthetic nicotine will be allowed, as will be other vaping tools and accessories because under no interpretation of the current law (Tobacco Control Act of 2009) can these things be construed as "tobacco products". What I see as a probable remaining ban will be flavored juices that contain nicotine (natural or synthetic), but that will be enacted as separate regulation or legislation to "protect the children". Then, there's always the outside bet that Trump will just eliminate the FDA altogether, which would definitely make me very happy (but we'll probably have to wait for the results of the mid-term elections for that to even have a chance to occur)!

 

[mountaingal]

I have been a vaper for five years now. I truly hope you are right in your assessment of the effects of nic as my dad died of "significant brain shrinkage" at 72.
I switch between vaping and 2mg gum use on an almost daily basis. I chew gum at movies, when the boss is around, and in "no smoking/vaping" casinos. I can go longer between vaping then I ever could with cigs.
For me, my mom smoked when pregnant, and all during my young years. I started smoking at 15. I smoked for 37 years, full flavored menthol. (I am 58 yrs of age) In my case, I truly believe, as smoking and vaping has been with me all my life, that nicotine in some form is a "norm" for me. I never really tried to quit smoking and I feel the same about vaping.
My husband has chewed 2mg nic gum for over ten years now. He smoked for 30+ years. He is over 60 years of age and is as sharp as he was when he was 40.
We get the gum from outside the states, much cheaper then here.